RE: Thoughts on third-party conformance; was Re: [Conformance] Agenda for Thursday 10 June

It’s great to see discussion of this draft proposal on list.

I want to point out that scoring is not yet specified in the proposal. Therefore, saying we’re letting anyone off the hook seems inaccurate to me.

What we have is various descriptions of types (and reasons) content providers turn to third parties. If there’s some way to insure that the third party over whose code and user interface the site that wants to conform has little or no influence, I think that would not be controversial.

Is it a critical failure to use a third party payment processor with some accessibility issues? I should think that would be as extreme as the opposite approach that says just don’t use third parties.

And, what’s the proposal for insuring conformance to WCAG 3 in User Generated content? If those of us who work in this field can have disagreements on how to meet our various requirements, what is it we expect from the casual Joe who posts some photos to a blog and offers a sentence or two?

The intent in this draft is to put responsibility where responsibility lies. Whatever we can marshal beyond that would, I think, be welcomed by all of us.

Best,

Janina
From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 10:28 AM
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Cc: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>; public-silver@w3.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Thoughts on third-party conformance; was Re: [Conformance] Agenda for Thursday 10 June


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


In my experience with multinations, they have a chunks of their functionally provided 3rd party content and these large corporations have a lot of influence over 3rd parties… as a result I’ve worked with many 3rd party providers who were trying to meet conformance in the context of the larger sitr where they were hosted.

If the web site is off the hook for 3rd party content… the 3rd party is likely not accountable to anyone because its hard to know who they are or where they are… and the web site is still inaccessible.

It might also motivate companies to farm out large portions of their site to 3rd parties…

Also, there may be a blurry line between 3rd party content and content that was coded by a third party, such as an agency?

I would be shy to exempt 3rd party content.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 7:22 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com<mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com>> wrote:
Hey folks,
After mulling it over some more, I wanted to reiterate that I am uncomfortable with the current proposal, and that I don't think this is ready to be added to a WCAG 3 draft just yet. As I indicated yesterday during the call, I think creating a blanket exception for all third-party content is problematic. Creating transparency about where the inaccessible content is, and who is responsible for it is a good step in the right direction. But I don't think doing just those two things absolves an organisation from their responsibility of ensuring their software isn't disabling their users.

I would ask that we continue to work on this. I don't think we've fully explored the options for third-party conformance yet.

Kind regards,


On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 9:01 PM Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>> wrote:

Colleagues:

The Silver Conformance Options Subgroup will meet again this Thursday 10
June at 12:00 PM (Noon) Boston Time (1600 UTC). You can confirm the correct time of this meeting in your local time zone using this link:

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Silver+Substantial+Conformance+Subgroup&iso=20210611T12&p1=43


Zoom teleconference data is provided at this link:

https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_silver-conf


As always, we'll be on IRC using the W3C server at irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org>, in channel #silver-conf.

These and additional details of our work, including minutes and current draft documents are available on our subgroup wiki page here:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance


*** Proposed Agenda ***

Agenda+             Agenda Review & Administrative Items
agenda+             Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

agenda+             Whoville as Proxy for Views & Processes https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Principle_3:_Scoping_for_Primary_Purpose

agenda+             Other Business
agenda+             Be Done


***Key Links***

(Draft) Proposal on Third Party Content
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content


May Report:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF



----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>



--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules

--
Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Mobile:  613.806.9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>